However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

"2019 Highest 2179"

1. On March 9, 2019, around 00:15, the Defendant: (a) on the taxi platform in front of the bus terminal in Geumcheon-gu, Geumnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do; (b) on the taxi platform operated by the victim B, as if he would normally pay the operating fee; (c) on the part of the victim, the Defendant would retain the victim as if he would normally pay the operating fee; and (d) did not pay 40,000 won to the victim before he was discharged from his service in the Daejeon-gu.

2. On March 10, 2019, around 01:55, the Defendant: (a) on the taxi platform in front of the bus terminal in Geumcheon-gu, Geumnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) on the taxi platform in front of the bus terminal operated by the victim D, as if he would normally pay the operating fee; (c) on the part of the victim, the Defendant got the victim to operate the taxi before the F in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul; and (d) did not pay the operating fee of KRW 250,000 on the part of the victim; and

3. On April 1, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 03:30 on April 1, 2019, 2019, on the street in front of the Y of the Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, the Defendant: (b) on the part of the Plaintiff, boarded the victim to the front of K in the J of the Gangwon-gu, the Defendant, as if he would normally pay the operating fee; (c) did not pay the operating fee of KRW 192,960; and (d) did not pay the operating fee of KRW 200,060,000.

On July 9, 2019, the Defendant: (a) around 00:00 on July 9, 2019, the Defendant, even though there was no particular revenue or property, and did not intend or ability to pay taxi expenses even if he/she was in the absence of any other revenue or property, he/she, as if he/she would normally pay taxi expenses before the branch of the Enterprise Bank located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Cheongju-si, and (b) was aboard the said passenger taxi and had the said victim operate the said taxi to the new railway station located in the Seo-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon, and did not pay KRW 44,000 on the same day, thereby obtaining financial benefits equivalent to the said amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant;